Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-25T19:09:18.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VALUE RELATIONS REVISITED

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2012

Wlodek Rabinowicz
Wlodek Rabinowicz*
Affiliation:
Lund University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Rabinowicz (2008), I considered how value relations can best be analysed in terms of fitting pro-attitudes. In the formal model of that paper, fitting pro-attitudes are represented by the class of permissible preference orderings on a domain of items that are being compared. As it turns out, this approach opens up for a multiplicity of different types of value relationships, along with the standard relations of ‘better’, ‘worse’, ‘equally as good as’ and ‘incomparable in value’. Unfortunately, the approach is vulnerable to a number of objections. I believe these objections can be avoided if one re-interprets the underlying notion of preference: instead of treating preference as a ‘dyadic’ attitude directed towards a pair of items, we can think of it as a difference of degree between ‘monadic’ attitudes of favouring. Each such monadic attitude has just one item as its object. Given this re-interpretation, permissible preferences can be modelled by the class of permissible assignments of degrees of favouring to items in the domain. From this construction, we can then recover the old modelling in terms of the class of permissible preference orderings, but the previous objections to that model no longer apply.

Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 28 , Issue 2: Formal Ethics , July 2012 , pp. 133 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arrhenius, G. 2005. The paradoxes of future generations and normative theory. In The Repugnant Conclusion, ed. Ryberg, J. and Tännsjö, T., 201–218. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Arrhenius, G. and Rabinowicz, W. 2005. Value and unacceptable risk: Temkin's worries about continuity – reconsidered. Economics and Philosophy 21: 177–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentano, F. 1969 [1889]. The Origin of Our Knowledge of Right and Wrong, transl. by Chisholm, R. M.. London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 2004. Weighing Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. 2005. Does rationality give us reasons? Philosophical Issues 15: 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. 2008. Is rationality normative? Disputatio 11: 153–171.Google Scholar
Carlson, E. 2003. On some recent examples of intransitive betterness. In Logic, Law, Morality, ed. Segerberg, K. and Sliwinski, R., 99–113. Uppsala Philosophical Studies 51. Uppsala: Department of Philosophy, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Chang, R. 1997. Introduction. In Incommensurability, Incomparability and Practical Reason, ed. Chang, R., 1–34. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, R. 2002 a. The possibility of parity. Ethics 112: 659–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R. 2002 b. Making Comparisons Count. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chang, R. 2005. Parity, interval value, and choice. Ethics 115: 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancy, J. 2005. Essentially comparative concepts. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 1: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. 1985. Incoherence and irrationality. Dialectica 39: 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gert, J. 2004. Value and parity. Ethics 114: 492–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, J. E. and Espinoza, N.. 2010. Conflicting reasons in the small improvement argument. The Philosophical Quarterly 60: 754–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heise, D. R. 2010. Surveying Cultures: Discovering Shared Conceptions and Sentiments. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kolodny, N. 2005. Why be rational? Mind 114: 509–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. and Tannenbaum, P. 1957. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E., May, W. H. and Miron, M. S. 1975. Cross-Cultural Universals of Affective Meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. 2011. On What Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. 2007. Parity, clumpiness, and rational choice. Utilitas 19: 505–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qizilbash, M. 2005. Transitivity and vagueness. Economics and Philosophy 21: 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. 2008. Value relations. Theoria 74: 18–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. 2009 a. Broome and the intuition of neutrality. Philosophical Issues 19 (supplement to Noûs): 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. 2009 b. Values compared. Polish Journal of Philosophy 3: 73–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. 2009 c. Incommensurability and vagueness. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 83: 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. 2011. Value relations – old wine in new barrels. In Philosophical Papers dedicated to Kevin Mulligan, ed. Anne Reboul. www.philosophie.ch/kevin/festschrift/Google Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. Forthcoming. Value: fitting-attitudes account of. In International Encyclopedia of Ethics, ed. LaFolette, Hugh. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. and Rønnow-Rasmussen, T. 2000. A distinction in value – intrinsic and for its own sake. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100: 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. and Rønnow-Rasmussen, T. 2004. The strike of the demon: on fitting pro-attitudes and value. Ethics 114: 391–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachels, S. 1998. Counterexamples to the transitivity of better than. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76: 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1973. On Economic Inequality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skorupski, J. 2010. The Domain of Reasons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temkin, L. S. 1986. Intransitivity and the mere addition paradox. Philosophy and Public Affairs 16: 138–210.Google Scholar
Temkin, L. S. 1993. Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temkin, L. S. 1996. A continuum argument for intransitivity. Philosophy and Public Affairs 25: 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temkin, L. S. 1997. Rethinking the good. Moral ideals and the nature of practical reasoning. In Reading Parfit, ed. Dancy, J., 290–345. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Temkin, L. S. 1999. Intransitivity and the person-affecting principle: a response. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59: 777–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temkin, L. S. 2001. Worries about continuity, transitivity, expected utility theory, and practical reasoning. In Exploring Practical Philosophy, ed. Egonsson, D., Josefsson, J., Petersson, B. and Rønnow-Rasmussen, T., 95–108. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Temkin, L. S. 2012. Rethinking the Good: Moral Ideals and the Nature of Practical Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, M. J. 2001. The Nature of Intrinsic Value. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar